Dozens of lawmakers in the House are trying to stop a second-term drive by President Obama to sign a United Nations treaty they say would put Americans’ Second Amendment rights at risk.

Obama reversed the course of the George W. Bush administration in October 2009, supporting negotiations at the UN for the Arms Trade Treaty that began in 2001 with the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

At the July 2012 international conference on the treaty, the administration called the selection of Iran to serve as vice-president of the conference “outrageous.” Global players accused the U.S. of undermining treaty efforts to look more gun-friendly on the campaign trail, and talks collapsed.

After Obama’s re-election, he proved — shall we say — more flexible.

Mere hours after his victory, the UN General Assembly’s disarmament committee seized the day and put forth a resolution calling for resumption of the arms treaty talks. It passed with no objections, 18 abstentions, and 157 “yes” votes. The U.S. voted in favor of the resolution.

Negotiations begin again in March, and a deal could be reached just months after that.

Lawmakers and lobbyists have expressed alarm that the July draft of the treaty, which aims to regulate international trade in conventional weapons, threatens the right to bear arms as well as U.S. sovereignty. One of many concerns is with the requirement in the draft treaty — which will be the starting point for final negotiations — for each member state to keep records on “end users,” or gun purchasers, for a minimum of 10 years. Hence, Americans who purchase an imported firearm may have to be registered in the country of origin. Ammunition could also be tracked and logged the same way, though the State Department has argued that they don’t see this as feasible due to “significant administrative and financial costs.”

Some groups have also pushed for the final treaty to be even more prohibitive, tracking and registering all weapons, all transfers, and all transactions. “The ATT should not exempt certain small arms (for example, sporting or hunting firearms) from its scope of application,” Amnesty International has stated.

Before the House left for the Thanksgiving break, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) introduced a resolution to make the treaty not binding and allow no federal funds to implement it unless it has consent in the Senate and has been the subject of implementing legislation by Congress.

“There is considerable cause for alarm regarding the UN’s renewed efforts to forge an Arms Trade Treaty that could trample the constitutional rights of Americans, and could seriously compromise our national security and the security of our allies, whom we will be less able to arm and less quick to defend due to the restrictions placed on us by the ATT,” Kelly said.

It comes on the heels of Kelly’s letter before the July treaty conference to Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, signed by 130 members of the House, outlining concerns that the document would not only violate personal freedom but compromise national security and America’s economic interests.

“The ATT must not accept that free democracies and totalitarian regimes have the same right to conduct arms transfers: this is a dangerous piece of moral equivalence,” stated the letter. “…Specifically, the ATT must not hinder the U.S. from fulfilling strategic, legal, and moral commitments to provide arms to allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel.”

“…The ATT should not contain any language that legitimizes the arming of terrorists — for example, by recognizing any right of resistance to ‘foreign occupation’ — or implies that signatories must recognized the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.”

The lawmakers also expressed opposition to the creation of any international agency to “to administer, interpret, or add to the ATT regime because it might represent the delegation of federal legal authority to a bureaucracy that is not accountable to the American people.”

The resolution strikes many similar points, including that the treaty would open the floodgates for countries to use “lawfare” against the U.S. via the misuse of the treaty’s criteria in foreign tribunals and risks imposing “costly regulatory burdens on United States businesses, for example, by creating onerous reporting requirements that could damage the domestic defense manufacturing base and related firms.”

It resolves that “the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and that, if he transmits the treaty with his signature to the Senate, the Senate should not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty.”

“Until the Arms Trade Treaty has been signed by the President, received the advice and consent of the Senate, and has been the subject of implementing legislation by the Congress, no Federal funds should be appropriated or authorized to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement, or to conduct activities relevant to the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement.”

The resolution has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It should get traction there as chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) was a top signatory on the June letter to Obama and Clinton.

Groups supporting the resolution include the National Rifle Association, Heritage Action, and the Endowment for Middle East Truth.

“The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). “I will oppose any measure that would infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans – that includes this arms treaty. I will continue to oppose efforts by the UN or any other person, organization, or country to fracture or supersede our Constitution.”

“My colleagues and I stand committed to fighting this threat to our sovereignty and to standing up for the U.S. Constitution, which we are all sworn to support and defend,” Kelly said.

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News.
She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Click here to view the 48 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

48 Comments, 25 Threads

1.
elephant4life

I’m confused. Since when can a treaty be implemented on His Majesty’s signature alone? I thought the Senate had to ratify it with 67 votes.

If a president could implement treaties by EO, Clinton would have done so with the Kyoto Accords. It can’t be done. The president is expressly required to get 2/3s of the Senate to ratify treaties first.

Obama ain’t Clinton. Clinton was smart enough to abandon Hillarycare and tack to the center after the 1994 elections. Obama is arrogant enough to try anything. The question is not whether or not it is legal, we know it is not, the question you have to ask is: “What would happen if he tried to implement it by executive order? Who would actually stand up to him and have the power to stop it?”

The house could impeach him, but it wouldn’t go anywhere in the senate. You’re more likely to find 67 votes to ratify the treaty than find 67 votes to convict him. He could rape a baby on live national television and the senate would not convict him. The supreme court could rule it unconstitutional, but all he has to do is wait until he can replace one of the conservative judges and all the liberal ones will vote in lock step to void the constitution. He could also try just ignoring the court the way Jackson did. The only thing that would stop him if he really pushed it is an armed insurrection, a military coup, or something of that nature. I just hope he has a strong enough sense of self preservation not to risk it.

Regardless of the ‘niceities’, of what is and isn’t allowed, the fact of the matter is that this blogger has been warning of The One’s plans for months. The handwriting is on the wall, and it is doubtful he will stop his hunt – against the Second Amendment!

Wouldn’t matter anyway. The 2nd amendment can ONLY be changed by another amendment. All Congress can do is ratify an amendment and pass it to the states. Google the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) to see what happens then.
Sounds like a FUD campaign to me. Get the suckers scared and they will send money. Right out of rinced and hung_out_to_dry’s playbook. The GOP thinks they got hammered because they didn’t have enough money. They refuse to accept that the game is over, the suckers have wised-up to the good cop bad cop routine worked on the taxpayers by both (D)’s and (R)’s.
Until there is a discernable difference between (D) and (R), the (R)’s will continue to lose elections. Who will vote FOR a watered down version of the other party? The best they can do is get voters to vote against the other party. See how well that worked a couple of weeks ago.
If a Chevy and a Rolls Royce cost the same, who would buy a Chevy?

“the vice of capitalism is unequal sharing of prosperity, the virtue of socialism is equal sharing of misery”

Does anybody know whether it takes 2/3 of the senate to ratify a treaty, or just 2/3 of those present? I.e. is it a fixed 67 votes minimum, or could they get away with holding a special democrats-only session and ramming it through? I could easily see the current regime being bold enough to lock republicans out, or hold a secret session in the dead of night, or something along those lines.

obumma can unilaterally make an Executive Agreement with foreign governments. These EAs are not binding on future presidents. But, while in office he can make lots of trouble for firearms owners with such an EA. The next president could either nullify the EA or continue to recognize and implement such an EA. Now, is the UN a foreign government? I would argue ‘NO.’ But, that will not stop him.

Still, the house can defund BATF (or whatever they are calling themselves these days), heck they can defund all of justice. Heck… just stop any funding of the UN and see how well the UN can enforce that treaty.

There is no law in this land anymore. No recognition by authorities of constitutional limitation on government. No limited government… just force of arms.

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The
possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who
has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him,
whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own
master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend
himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at
discretion.”

~James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors,
Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775].

Unfortunately cutting the funding will not work. The government’s been operating without a budget for several years now and the senate’s outright stated that they have no intention of passing one any time soon. The power of the purse has essentially been stripped from congress and given to the executive. Even if congress did cut the funding, Obama would just fund it directly from the fed, that’s what he did with the frank-dodd bill and parts of Obamacare. Congress has no say in the funding because it’s just funded directly by printing money from the fed.
We’re already far into banana republic territory.

You’re right. The Constitution says “two-thirds of those present”. So, theoretically, Dirty Harry could pull something to exclude 20 or so GOP Senators (like mucking around with procedures). He’s treading on thin ice though due to his dereliction of duty regarding the budget. I would like to think that every GOP Senator would move heaven and earth to be present for such a monumental vote. The question: would they vote against it? They caved on the START renewal that gave away the store to Putin.

And this is when I go get my permit in January and a few firearms as soon as it goes through.

Glorious Leader will of course sign it, and even if the senate doesnt ratify it, he’ll enforce it through exec order. I mean he has proven he doesnt care what congress does or says, why would he care if they ratify it or not? There will be talk of open rebellion at that point and of impeachment, but nothing will happen, and we’ll continue to slip further and further under the thumb of our new masters, until we no longer have the power to fight back.

its hard to be king when everybody has a gun to fight you with. he must sieze our guns to achieve his plan for us, whatever that is. fast & furious was all about putting large quantities of u.s. guns into the hands of the drug cartels to gain support for taking our guns. what other reason could there be? he and hitlery were both slinging false stat’s about how 90+% of the guns being used there were from the u.s. the truth was more like 15% +/-. after the death of hundreds of innocent people, he just claimed executive privilege, promoted the people involved and hid the rest, as any snake would do. they even pushed this treaty during issa’s investigation.

Americans better find a way to stop this gun grab or it will lead to some bad times for people not even expecting it, obamanuts. we ain’t giving up our guns w/o a fight. maybe that’s what all the e.o.’s are all about. causing a civil disturbance to declare martial law, where he then has dictatorial powers. there is no big need here for this treaty. these traitors trying to help him deserve our attention as well once all he!! breaks loose. don’t think it couldn’t happen here. that’s what all destroyed societies said. kypd

Right after Obama took office he had his lawyers working on the legality and constitutionality of signing and enforcing a treaty without senate ratification. Most people seem to have forgotten it. I have not.

Absolutely! Many folks, including myself, have been saying that for years. We provide a good portion of the U.N.’s funding but they are constantly going against us and trying to alter or abolish our rights. It’s time to go. We could use that building for homeless Veterans.

What the House thinks of a treaty is neither here nor there because they have no legal voice in the process. Only the Senate can make treaties apply to the US. I don’t know what the count is in the Senate, but I suggest it is VERY unlikely to pass a treaty that by its very nature sets up a conflice with the Constitution.

“The Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators PRESENT concur” (Article II, section 2).”

The defining word here is of senators PRESENT. It only takes 51 senators to form a quorum, so theoretically the treaty could be ratified with 34 senators. The democrats have more than 51 senators. They could hold a secret session in the dead of night on Christmas eve and not tell the Republicans. Hell, Obama’s been making “recess” appointments while the senate is still in session, what’s to keep him from say locking all the republicans out of the senate, forming a quorum with the Democrats, and passing the treaty with 34 votes?

TO ARMS!!!!! The powder-blue-pom-pom forces of the U.N. advance upon us (traveling hidey-holes at the point). Emperor Barry wills it so. What choice do we have in the face of such naked tyranny?!? RESIST! STAND FAST! Remember: aim low and keep the fire HOT. You know what to do, Americans. We recognize NO King and NO foreign entity that would DARE tell us what our Rights are!

The U.N. are also assaulting freedom of speech, and every sovereign entity along with its land and sea holdings around the world. Agenda 21 is a direct assault on the cornerstone of freedom – private property. Everything Obama does and much of what he says mirrors the U.N. agenda and more specifically the Club Of Rome agenda
working through the U.N. The arms treaty and its implications are but one part of an all out assault on U.S. sovereignty. The fact that we’re even having to discuss the incursion of the U.N. on American soil is very very telling – our watchmen have been asleep while the enemy has gained ground. The U.N. is an evil totalitarian entity that would make Orwell crap his pants.

Sorry, president, buy all my guns and ammunition are on the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay, following a series of unfortunate canoe mishaps. Just to let you know. I guess you can call me the Accident-Prone Formerly-Armed Canoe Skipper.

If the feds have perverted the commerce clause enough to burn the grain a man was growing on his own land to feed his chickens with, using the justification that because he was growing grain he was not buying it on the open market and therefore affecting interstate commerce, then there’s no way they’ll let red states escape their firearm edicts. The commerce clause was originally a drinking straw that got bored out into a tunnel carrying a four lane highway during the new deal. They will use it to come after guns that never leave the state of their manufacture and sale, guaranteed.

Democrats are opportunists. If Obama is in a position to sign this treaty, he will. Then the treaty can just hang out there until some opportunity to pass it comes along. The Dems/media may attempt another PR stunt like F&F to push apparent public opinion to ratify or it may sit on the shelf for 15 years until a more “enlightened” Senate is in place.
His main goal is to push gun control forward. After the way they passed Obamacare, I would be inclined to expect a pre-planned event like riots in the wake of a George Zimmerman aquital or another mall shooting. Some emotional headline that pushes the call for “reasonable” gun control laws.
Communists have always used a ratchet philosophy; 2 steps forward and 1 step back is still progress to them.

The “pre-planned event” has already happened — that mass shooting in Aurora, CO. It was timed to coincide with scheduled debate on this very treaty. An unemployed college kid somehow was able to amass a vast arsenal of guns, ammo, extra magazines and body armor. And the clincher: he also had tear gas. It’s impossible for an ordinary citizen to legally obtain tear gas. FFLs don’t sell it; surplus stores don’t sell it. Only the government has access to the stuff. That means at least one person in the government, either directly or indirectly, was in cahoots with the killer — most likely the same person who opened the emergency exit for him.

Note also that within minutes of the massacre the usual suspects were screaming for their usual nostrums (new “assault weapons” ban, ban of magazines of >10 rounds, etc.). Fortunately the regime’s narrative quickly fell apart once the facts came to light, and the story has fallen by the wayside. This convinces me that millions of people quickly smelled the same rat that I did.

This administration wants gun control, not to lessen crime, but because they are afraid of the gun-owning populace. This is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment and must be treated by our congress as such. What’s the first thing a dictator does when cementing power? Disarm the population. The Japanese were terrified of invading the US during WWII because of the number of American gun owners and hunters. The UN should go to school on that fact. They weren’t even provided ammunition in Rawanda. There would likely be an epidemic of lead poisoning if they happened to show up here.

If it were possible, and Obama wishes it was, he would wave his hand and declare all firearms illegal, revoke the Constitution and make himself king, demand that banks turn into the Treasury all accounts over $20,000 for redistribution, if you didn’t belong to a union you would not be allowed to work…..etc., etc.

REPLY TO: 1. elephant4life who said:
I’m confused. Since when can a treaty be implemented on His Majesty’s signature alone? I thought the Senate had to ratify it with 67 votes.

POTUS can sign the treaty and it will have the effect of law that overrides the Constitution. The treaty can go on indefinitely as a ‘semiformal agreement.’ It must be ratified by the Senate, but the kicker is the Senate majority leader must bring up the treaty for ratification as part of the Senate business. Reid will not do that, so for at least 3 years after POTUS signs the treaty, it will have the effect of law. Oh yes, and just as a side note, a treaty overrides the Constitution.

The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in “pursuance” of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [n34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

End of relevant section of the decision.

I’m assuming that this decision has not been superseded by a later Supreme Court decision and is still the law of the land.

What we’re seeing is a progressive socialist that can’t get his agenda through the house of reps so he will use the UN & international community. If you read the ATT treaty line by line you will see that it puts our gun rights in the hands of the UN & if we violate it the international commmunity will support sending troops to the USA. We have very few friends in the world these days so don’t expect any help from other countries. People deserve the government they elect or allow & the very people who support obama the most will suffer the most when our economy collapses they are just too ignorant to see it.